|
     
What's Wrong With Mary Jane?
Posted by D_Martin on May 20, 2007 at 12:05 PM CST:
History has shown us that certain chest-thumping groups love using pop culture to get on the news. They understand Event Mentality and how to exploit it like an ad agency. Sadly, when people flaps their lips loud enough a bunch of people will join in without getting the facts. This is the big sister of Event Mentality, and her name is Mob. While it is universally accepted that hindsight clears the heads of those who blindly followed a single person or group's rage, the damage is already done. You see, hindsight, even being 20/20, doesn't have the technological advancements of a DeLoren with a Flux Capacitor, so what good is it? Sure, everyone who kept their cool gets to say 'I told you so' and look down the nose at the people that fell for it, but it doesn't put things right.
Surprisingly we're not discussing politics or religion, or for that matter even a play off game. No true believers, we're talking about a statue. A piece of moulded polystone that is precisely painted in China. What's more, it's not even a moulded polystone statue that has anything to do with politics, religion, or sports. It's a statue of a woman doing laundry (gasp!)
The week in review
The May 16th edition of the New York Post featured an article about a group of people who were offended by Sideshow's Mary Jane Comiquette. Of course, the first paragraph already paints a negative tone by stating "Say, doesn't that comely babe - barefoot, buxom and scrubbing some laundry - look familiar?" Certainly the intent here is to be lighthearted, but it plays directly to the view of the offended party by stating a completely inaccurate description. Clearly, yes, she does look familiar, and yes, there is little doubt that she is both buxom and barefooted, but where is the scrub board? Maybe we're blind, but it looks to us like that's a simple laundry basket not unlike the one in your own closet or the one on you Aunt Ginny's kitchen table. Starting off a story on this topic with such an inaccurate description of the statue doesn't help keep the article impartial, and as such, that is the reason we're posting this statement.
Open your eyes before you open your mouth
It's the opinion of this writer (and keep that in mind, that it is an opinion, and it is not meant to be pushed down your throat) that this entire debacle is baseless and is spawned by a small group of narrow-minded harpies and their followers; all of which are going crazy without knowing anything about the designer or the character they have targeted, so let us look first at these two things?
The artwork of Adam Hughes
For those of you not familiar with this popular artist, let us tell you that he is known for his illustrations of comic book characters, mostly women. These women are always drawn very well, and his style is distinctive, but what most people may not notice is that he is drawing powerful, confident women. Women with brains. Women who are interesting, and often times best selling characters. Pop culture icons. Sure, these women are buxom nine times out of ten, but that is what comic art is. Superheroes, regardless of gender, are drawn with exaggerated proportions and physical features. Why? Well, why not? It's fantasy. It's not meant to be real. What Hughes has done with his individual style is add a higher level of sophistication to the characters he draws. What's more, despite proportions, he has never (in any illustrations we've ever seen) sacrificed the character's core to give a little extra T&A. Which brings us to?
Mary Jane is a buxom, sexy flirt
Yeah, that's right, we actually typed that and posted it. If you are a part of the mob, you are probably already speed-dialing your congressman to complain, and there's little doubt that he knows you by name. For everyone else, let us continue to say that Mary Jane is a character that has been around for close to thirty years. When we met her she was a teenager. She was also a model and went on to become an actress, but all that is on the surface. What MJ really is, in her core, is a pillar of support for Peter Parker. She is his partner. He is nothing without her, and equally she is nothing without him. She is, for all intents and purposes a good strong role model. It's important to keep that in mind while you look at the statue that has caused all this strife.
To anyone who knows and understands the character, what's going on with this statue makes sense and seems right for the character. So let's analyze it a little. Below are the 'offending' features and a rational explanation for each:
-Mary Jane is barefoot
Yeah, why not? She's at home. Are you wearing footwear right now? (for the record this writer is wearing socks, but was barefoot in the house earlier today. We just thought we should get that out in the open). Point is many people, regardless of gender, hang in their homes barefooted. What's more, this isn't the first time SSC has done a statue of a scantly clad barefooted Marvel character. (see below)
omg, he's not wearing a shirt either!
-Mary Jane's breasts are huge and hanging out
Lot of women have big boobs. To say that it's shocking and offensive for comic characters to be well endowed is silly. It's not a written law that all comic book women have large chests. (A quick note that not all do: Check out Roxy from Gen 13, Marina from Alpha Flight, and Death from Sandman). As for the actual clothing she's wearing, you'd have to be blind not to notice that there are women who dress like this and go out in public in every major city in North America. It is a fact that comic art reflects modern fashion. Sometimes that shows that fashion trends are horrible (shall we once again look at the rules of hindsight?). For instance, Wolverine didn't always walk around with a dirty undershirt and old jeans. Back in the early Eighties he wore a polyester cowboy suit Really, we can't make this stuff up. Google search it and see for yourself.
-It's demeaning for MJ to do Spider-Man's laundy
That's a demented concept right there. Let's go back to the part where we mentioned that they are a married couple. They're partners. So she's doing the laundry. Big deal. Who doesn't do their partner's laundry? Sharing chores is not demeaning in any way, shape, or form. Just because She's doing the laundry in this one instance, there is no suggestion that she's the good old obedient housewife serving her husband. This is 2007. Happily married couples share chores. Disregarding this fact only further proves how baseless these complaints truly are.
So what's the point to all this anyway?
Well, it's like this. Enough negative press has come of this debacle that Marvel and or Sideshow may cease production on this piece, or alter it to be more politically correct. We all know there are far 'worse' statues out there, but we have to remember that at the end of the day it should be our choice what statues we can purchase. If this piece was truly depicting something awful there might be a stronger argument to stand against it, but this isn't the case. What we have here is a group of people using the success of Spider-Man 3 to get their names in the paper. If it were anything more than that we'd see a lot more 'offensive' statues included in this witch-hunt.
So what can I do about it?
The right thing is what you can do about it. Contact Marvel and Sideshow and show your support. Let them know that you want to see this piece come out. Let them know that you are not offended by it. Collectors have a right to get this piece unaltered.
Click this link to contact Marvel and this one to contact Sideshow. Let them know you support the production of this statue. it's your right to choose. Don't let someone take that right away from you.
Let your voice be heard. Let them know that you will not stand by and let some one tell you what you can and cannot buy. Furthermore, tell your friends. We all have the freedom to choose what we purchase. Let's keep it that way.
|
  
|
|
 |
